From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] C/R: Basic support for network namespaces and devices Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:38:29 -0800 Message-ID: <878wbrpix6.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1263999673-11279-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1263999673-11279-4-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4B57751A.5080506@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org OL> Would this compile without CONFIG_NET ? without CONFIG_NET_NS ? Nope, but it does depend on CONFIG_CHECKPOINT, of course. I'll add some Kconfig magic to try to straighten that out. OL> How can a user ask to not checkpoint the network-ns ? (e.g. in OL> a subtree checkpoint) Do we really want to start adding fine-grained control over everything that we checkpoint? Can you ask it to not checkpoint the ipc_ns, uts_ns, etc? The previous example of this was connected sockets, which I think is different, given the potential for a long delay before restart ensuring the sockets will be dead anyway. OL> Is there a reason not to collect all addresses into one buffer OL> (can there be more than a page worth of them ?) and write in one OL> go ? I don't really see anywhere that the list is bounded. I'd say that in most cases each interface will only have one address anyway. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org